Closing Thoughts

Now back to the question I asked at the beginning... "Is equality a noble ideal and something we should strive for or should we simply acknowledge the inequalities in society and continue on with the hierarchy of power?" The second question was, "If we do believe that equality is a worthwhile goal, does it have to be absolute? Can it be a reduction of inequality.. or equality only in certain areas?

If it had to be black or white, an all or nothing situation then I would have to argue against equality. In a capitalist society there can never be a true equality. It is not my political views that would have me argue against equality. In terms of equality in regards to income my issue is not that everyone be equalized... but that the poor have enough to make a decent life.

There are three equalities from a political standpoint.

1. Equal rights
2. Equal opportunities
3. Equality before the law

I do, however, believe in these three equalities. I believe that citizenship in a country should give us equal rights. We have the freedom of speech, freedom of religion. We have the ability to vote in a democratic matter.

In terms of equal opportunities I do not believe in affirmative action. I do believe that we should have equal access to health, education, employment and social welfare. On that note it would be good if education was sponsored by the government. But that is just my thought.

Equality of law means that when a law is created every person is to be treated equally under the law.

I guess the only one I have a problem with is the idea of equal income distribution. I do not believe that socialism is the answer and I enjoy having the individual freedoms. But any attempt to create equality will undoubtedly challenge those freedoms. Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the individual for the good of the whole.

Culture, religion, lifestyle, feelings – these are all aspects of our private lives and should be of no concern to the state or other public authorities. Yet governments in the West pour public money into what should be private, to separate and divide people even more. A truly plural society would be one in which citizens have full freedom to pursue their different values or practices in private, while in the public sphere all citizens would be treated as equals whatever the differences in their private lives. Today, however, pluralism has come to mean the very opposite. The right to practise a particular religion, speak a particular language, follow a particular cultural practice is seen as a public good rather than a private freedom. Different interest groups demand to have their ‘differences’ institutionalised in the public sphere.

If culture, religion and lifestyle were private and were part of individual rights there would likely be more equality in society. The problem is that all of these issues have now been on display in the public arena with each group wanting more rights. How about each group be treated equally so that we do not need special interest groups, all talking of the injustices they face?

So to answer my own question... yes I do believe in equality. However, I do not believe in absolute equality. I believe that equality should be promoted in certain areas, such as equal access but not in terms of income.

As a side note.... this whole debate isn't even really mine. So Adam... this one's for you. Wanted to give you something to think about. :o) In a philosophical debate I would rather discuss morality, ethics or logic. So the debate I had about absolute truth was more my style.